[Kraetos]

Since the App Store came out I've been hoping that Google, Palm, RIM, or hell, even Microsoft would pick up some momentum with one of their App Store knockoffs and maybe that would prod Apple into shaping up.

Of course, that hasn't happened, and iPhone's dominance has continued unabated. However, it appears the Google Voice fiasco has set off some warning bells in Washington.

The FCC pretty much covers ever base, you can see the letter here.

Five and six are the money questions:

Originally Posted by The Man 5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers? 6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

In other words, "we've been watching you be monopolistic assholes for the past twelve months and you just crossed the line which allows to us nail your asses to the wall for it. You've been served."

App Store developers and users have been dying to ask these questions of Apple and get a straight answer since the App Store came out. This is going to be good.

[Moogs]

That is a pretty bad-ass letter. I didn't realize they had gone to that extent, I thought they were just flashing their badge as it were and telling the kids to play nice.

[PB PM]

It is about time, open it up Apple!

[Iago]

As a developer I'm delighted. The entire process from getting accepted to the programme to having an app submitted is awful. Two examples:

1. My own submission, through a registered limited company in the UK, took two months to process. When we called to ask why about three weeks ago, they said they didn't have a reason and approved us there and then–literally, the code arrived in my inbox that second.

2. I know this hurts a lot of developers, but look at Garrett Murray's experience.

A minor API change from someone meant that a key part of his Ego application stopped working. He fixed the bug but it took weeks for Apple to approve this relatively minor, but nonetheless extremely urgent, update. All the while, Ego was getting more and more negative reviews on the Store because people saw an app that wasn't working.

All I want is a person on the phone who I can speak to about my applications when I submit them. I know they need to be tested and I recognise that it's a great thing. I also recognise that this may take some time. But I want Apple to trust me and assume I won't screw up and put hardcore porn (or VoIP!) on my application, rather than treating me like some kind of fucking criminal.

[Banana]

I'm not understanding why FCC feels a need to make an inquiry.

Isn't it entirely up to Apple to manage the App store as they see fit? Furthermore, if they really didn't like the restrictions, it's up to consumers to get another handheld with features they want, isn't it?

Sure, the criticism about the approval process may be very well valid, but that's entirely Apple's prerogative to respond (or not) to those criticism and reap what they sow.

It looks more like strong-arming to me.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Kraetos (...) In other words, "we've been watching you be monopolistic assholes for the past twelve months and you just crossed the line which allows to us nail your asses to the wall for it. You've been served." (...)

It's not necessarily a monopoly. If you look at smart phones in general Apple does not have a dominant position, but if you narrow your definition down to smart phones with integrated app store, then it is. I'm no expert on US competition law, but I suspect that the FCC's principal suspicion is that Apple have got "an understanding" with AT&T about what apps they don't want on the iPhone. And that would be a conspiracy to hinder competition by erecting entry barriers.

Originally Posted by Banana (...) Isn't it entirely up to Apple to manage the App store as they see fit? Furthermore, if they really didn't like the restrictions, it's up to consumers to get another handheld with features they want, isn't it? (...)

Well, then we are back at the monopoly question: Since there isn't any phone out there that quite measures up to the iPhone consumers are going to put up with Apple's restrictions. And then Apple will have used their dominant position in smart phones (with app store) to muscle out a competitor in chat/VOIP. Or maybe you really like Internet Explorer? Remember that even though you might still pick Firefox, all those other run-of-the-mill users will not and then many web-sites would have continued to code for EI exclusively.

I'm all with the FCC on this one.

[faramirtook]

Yeah, this is about collusion between oligopolies, not monopolies.

[Partial]

Thank goodness. There is money to be made in this market and I would strongly consider jumping in if Apple wasn't such a giant ballsack to developers concerning the app store.

Kudos to the FCC for knocking them down a peg or two. They really have been supreme dbags with the way it can take months upon months to get an app in, or reject an app without providing a reason why, etc.

[Enki]

Hardly a ball-breaking letter at all. The FCC is having deliberations on a couple potential rules and doesn't want to be blindsided by data during the comment period. The real fishing expedition is whether ATT used it's contracts with Apple to demand removal of the apps. Even if ATT continues denying it, the pattern will be revealed in which apps have and have not been approved.

I expect the end result of those deliberations to actually be to Apples benefit. If handset exclusivity is banned, Apple is removed via the ruling from ATT shackles and dealing with Verizon will be better because Verizon won't be able to call the shots on software load outs on their network's phones either. Apple looses a little bit on the exclusivity kickback it gets from ATT, but opens up the rest of the market pretty much on it's terms with previously micromanaging players like Verizon.

[Robo]

I think the FCC needs to be looking at the carriers more than Apple, to be honest (not that Apple's being a saint with the App Store, mind). I mean, we're so far behind the rest of the world in cellular technology in the US, and the blame for that can be laid squarely at the feet of the carriers, who are so insistent on locking everything down. Lots of people in the US don't ever know you can buy phones from places other than your carrier. It's insane. (Even more insane: If you have Verizon or Sprint, you can't!)

[Justin]

The FCC is already looking into carriers and the exclusive deals, then this Google Voice thing just landed in their lap. It's a huge story getting a lot of attention and that's why they added it into their bigger investigation.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by Mugge It's not necessarily a monopoly. If you look at smart phones in general Apple does not have a dominant position, but if you narrow your definition down to smart phones with integrated app store, then it is. I'm no expert on US competition law, but I suspect that the FCC's principal suspicion is that Apple have got "an understanding" with AT&T about what apps they don't want on the iPhone. And that would be a conspiracy to hinder competition by erecting entry barriers. Well, then we are back at the monopoly question: Since there isn't any phone out there that quite measures up to the iPhone consumers are going to put up with Apple's restrictions. And then Apple will have used their dominant position in smart phones (with app store) to muscle out a competitor in chat/VOIP. Or maybe you really like Internet Explorer? Remember that even though you might still pick Firefox, all those other run-of-the-mill users will not and then many web-sites would have continued to code for EI exclusively. I'm all with the FCC on this one.

Seems pretty murky to me. The iPhone has nothing like a dominant, much less monopoly, position in the smart phone market at large. Thus, it's unclear to me why managing their app store however they see fit would trigger any kind of "anti-competitive" response from the FCC. Saying that if you want a great customer experience or UI or huge selection of apps the iPhone is the only game in town, therefore something something doesn't seem like much of an argument.

I would welcome more transparency, expediency, and clarity in the App Store approval process, but it's not clear to me why Apple treating its own developers shabbily, when they absolutely do not control the smart phone market, would need FCC action. If Apple/ATT reject Google Voice, but that app is available on other platforms with substantial percentages of total market share, wouldn't that just be a matter of Apple/ATT shooting themselves in the foot? How is such a move "anti-competitive" when it just keeps a given app off a given platform with good but not overwhelming market share?

Please note I think Apple are absolutely being contemptible assholes about how they're managing the App Store, and it makes me furious-- if only because I really like what the iPhone has done for the handset market and I would hate to see Apple fritter away early achievements on pointless control-freakism. I just wonder about what the FCC's reasoning is.

[Kraetos]

If you missed it, Apple has just pulled off what is arguably the most ridiculous App store shenanigan yet.

Apple censors Ninjawords.

It was initially rejected because it had obscenities in it. A dictionary? With swear words in it? You don't say!

Originally Posted by Gruber Apple requires you to be 17 years or older to purchase a censored dictionary that omits half the words Steve Jobs uses every day.

At least it's on the App store. But it has a ridiculous 17+ rating and all the swears have been censored.



I had a feeling it would turn out this way when I first heard about the submission process. I think the only way to save the App Store at this point is to drop the submission screenings entirely and rely on customer feedback to pick out any Apps which have an inappropriate rating or should be flagged for some other reason.

At the very least, they should drop every aspect of it except for the age ratings, and post crystal clear guidelines on the ADC so developers know what they're getting into.

I fear that more and more developers are going to leave the App Store if this continues. But not the "dollar store" developers who are making arcade games and fart apps. Serious Mac developers who have the talent to make great iPhone apps are going to high-tail it outa there. Yeah, webOS and Android are not as good as iPhone OS and their SDKs are less robust, but hopefully they see the opportunity here to make the App gridlines more lenient than Apple's... which isn't exactly tough to do at this point.



I'd say that the App Store is the single biggest blunder Apple has made since Steve returned twelve years ago. I mean, it's one thing for the Cube or the iPod HiFi to flop—those are just product. But right now, Apple is screwing up an entire platform. One of the most interesting platforms we've seen in years.

[addison]

Originally Posted by Roboman I think the FCC needs to be looking at the carriers more than Apple, to be honest (not that Apple's being a saint with the App Store, mind). I mean, we're so far behind the rest of the world in cellular technology in the US, and the blame for that can be laid squarely at the feet of the carriers, who are so insistent on locking everything down. Lots of people in the US don't ever know you can buy phones from places other than your carrier. It's insane. (Even more insane: If you have Verizon or Sprint, you can't!)

How are we "so far behind" the rest of the world in cellular technology? And nobody other than geeks care about unlocked phones that cost hundreds of dollars. People want cheap, free phones or are willing to accept a contract in exchange for a handset subsidy. The only place the iPhone is sold unlocked is France. Do you know how much it is?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by AWM The only place the iPhone is sold unlocked is France.

And Italy, and Belgium, and Singapore, and…

Yes, it's expensive, and yes, the mass appeal is limited, but that's no reason to defend exclusive contracts and subsidies.

[addison]

Originally Posted by chucker And Italy, and Belgium, and Singapore, and… Yes, it's expensive, and yes, the mass appeal is limited, but that's no reason to defend exclusive contracts and subsidies.

Wasn't aware more countries were added. How much is the phone in Belgium and Italy? I just think most people benefit from the subsidies, especially here in the US. It will only work on one carrier so what would be the point of buying it unlocked? Apple benefits too, they would sell a lot less of them if they had no subsidy.

edit: From what I saw online, the 3GS costs either $860 or $998 in Italy. That means the cost of ownership, using a conservative $80/mo. for service, would be about $3000 if that model was used here in the US!! I'd rather sign the contract and take the subsidy.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by AWM I just think most people benefit from the subsidies, especially here in the US.

Yes, of course they benefit, because the monthly rates already factor in the subsidy regardless of whether you buy your phone subsidized or unlocked. It's not like you can go to your carrier and ask for a cheaper rate because you already paid the full phone's price.

Does that make it right?

It will only work on one carrier so what would be the point of buying it unlocked? Apple benefits too, they would sell a lot less of them if they had no subsidy.

Of course Apple benefits.

I don't personally benefit from having it unlocked, and I frankly think very few people in Germany do. All other networks are GSM, but T-Mobile Germany (with whom Apple have the exclusive contract) has by far the best 3G network…

edit: From what I saw online, the 3GS costs either $860 or $998 in Italy. That means the cost of ownership, using a conservative $80/mo. for service, would be about $3000 if that model was used here in the US!! I'd rather sign the contract and take the subsidy.

Again, you're effectively factoring in the phone costs twice, because those $80/mo. already assume you're buying your phone subsidized.

[addison]

Well, I agree that hardly anyone would benefit from an unlocked/unbranded iPhone. But the subsidy has little to do with the monthly rate fee, at least here in the US. It is a way for the carrier to guarantee revenue for a set period of time which is incredibly important for them. They have huge fixed costs and spectrum costs billions of dollars. You could move to a fully unsubsidized model tomorrow and I doubt there would be much movement in your monthly bill.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by AWM But the subsidy has little to do with the monthly rate fee, at least here in the US. It is a way for the carrier to guarantee revenue for a set period of time which is incredibly important for them. They have huge fixed costs and spectrum costs billions of dollars.

Yes, the carriers pay for spectrum licenses, tower construction and maintenance, etc., and yes, part of your monthly bill goes into that. Another large chunk goes into paying for the phone you got for a fraction of the actual price.

You could move to a fully unsubsidized model tomorrow and I doubt there would be much movement in your monthly bill.

Because the carriers will charge whatever they can get, sure — but their margins will go way up.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by AWM It will only work on one carrier so what would be the point of buying it unlocked?

Incorrect. It would work on AT&T, T-Mobile, and other Regional Carriers that use GSM.

Originally Posted by AWM Apple benefits too, they would sell a lot less of them if they had no subsidy.

Who says the other carriers wouldn't offer a subsidy? The subsidy is born by the carrier, not Apple. AT&T buys them from Apple, then re-sells them to the customer at less than they paid for it in exchange for a contract commitment. What would prevent T-Mobile or other regional carriers from doing this?

It's not like the carriers are actually out this money. They are simply passing it on to you in smaller monthly increments for the duration of the contract.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by zippy Incorrect. It would work on AT&T, T-Mobile, and other Regional Carriers that use GSM.

Note that 3G wouldn't work on T-Mobile (because their frequency isn't supported). Not sure about inhowfar regional carriers even have 3G.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by chucker Note that 3G wouldn't work on T-Mobile (because their frequency isn't supported). Not sure about inhowfar regional carriers even have 3G.

As it stands, sure. But at least the phone itself, and 2G would work, and for many, that would be a huge leap forward.

But if this was built as an unlocked device from the beginning, I would imagine it would have support for other 3G frequencies - like many unlocked phones do.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by zippy But if this was built as an unlocked device from the beginning, I would imagine it would have support for other 3G frequencies

Well, it supports four 2G bands and three 3G ones. T-Mobile, unfortunately, uses the fourth.

[zippy]

That might have been done on purpose. Maybe at the prompting of AT&T.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by zippy That might have been done on purpose. Maybe at the prompting of AT&T.

T-Mobile uses a new/unique 3G band (1700/AWS). Most phones don't support it unless they're designed for T-Mobile specifically (to be sold in T-Mobile stores). I think Nokia includes the band on a few of the unlocked models they sell in the US, but that's it.

AWM: We're behind even on the subsidized phones. In Europe, almost ever major smartphone can be had for free, if you get an expensive enough plan. On T-Mobile UK, the brand new "G2 Touch" (HTC Hero) can be had for free on an 18-month contract if your plan costs ~$59 USD a month. T-Mobile US just got its older brother, the HTC Magic, as the "myTouch 3G" - which is $200 with a 24-month contract, no matter which plan you get. Hell, here you're walking out the door paying $10 for absolutely shitty low-end dumbphones like the Samsung T229 and the Motorola Renew (both for T-Mobile US).

There's a lot of reasons why the US is behind - splitting the market between GSM and CDMA is probably part of it, and that'll probably get better now that everybody who matters (sorry, Sprint!) will be on LTE. But I think the carriers' absolute dominance over all aspects of the cellular market - phones, service, content... - is part of it. If you walk into a Best Buy Mobile and ask for (just) an AT&T SIM, the people probably won't know how to help you.

US carriers feel the need to have their own special firmware - not just a carrier-branded store icon, but often a whole new UI and different features (I'm looking at you, Verizon!). That probably plays a factor in why we get lots of phones a year after everyone else. But this is bullshit because the people who actually care about those features will just flash the firmware to the unbranded version anyway. Verizon routinely removes features like Wi-Fi from their highest-end phones. I don't understand their reasoning on that one at all.

And we pay for incoming texts. Need I go on? Just once I'd like to see somebody make a US-Canadian carrier that's more European WRT phones, pricing, policies, &c. But people in the US honestly don't know that you can buy phones from anywhere other than the AT&T store - which means AT&T can shovel them shit and they'll buy it anyways. It's obvious a very profitable prospect for AT&T. (I think that's why doing a routine unlock of the iPhone fascinates us so; it's like working dark magic to make an AT&T phone work with T-Mobile too!)

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman But I think the carriers' absolute dominance over all aspects of the cellular market - phones, service, content... - is part of it. [..] US carriers feel the need to have their own special firmware - not just a carrier-branded store icon, but often a whole new UI and different features (I'm looking at you, Verizon!).

These two are the same for Europe (though it's Vodafone, not Verizon, who loves to heavily customize the UI).

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker These two are the same for Europe (though it's Vodafone, not Verizon, who loves to heavily customize the UI).

But you can at least buy unlocked phones from a third party retailer and use them, no?

Verizon and Sprint's networks are totally compatible, but either of them won't accept the others phones - if you're switching, you have to buy new ones. It doesn't matter that the phone you have roams on the other network all the time with no problems, or that the phone you're going to buy is totally identical to the other version except for the logos - if your phone doesn't have Sprint's logo on it, they won't activate it for you, ever. That's their stated policy - it's the little logo sticker that counts.

(I'm hoping the FCC basically forces Verizon to open up a bit, with LTE. Sprint's going off into their own little world with WiMAX, but they're becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway.)

I'm not surprised that Vodafone (one of Verizon Wireless's parent companies) heavily customizes their UI. Do they actually replace the whole thing? For several years Verizon had this "Red" UI that they forced onto every single non-smartphone, to reduce training and support costs. Everybody hates it. They've opened up a little bit, on things like full-touch phones. But for a few years if you were buying a Verizon flip you could basically buy any of them, because they all had the exact same interface (with tons of ads for VZW's "Get It Now!" service, of course).

[PKIDelirium]

My recent Verizon (Samsung Alias 2) has a customized UI but it's not the "red" one that they used for a while. My phone before it (2007 Nokia/Pantech flip phone) had it though.

[Robo]

Just the words "Nokia/Pantech" make me cringe.

I had a Pantech phone, in 2007. We...we shall not speak of it again.

[addison]

Originally Posted by Roboman AWM: We're behind even on the subsidized phones. In Europe, almost ever major smartphone can be had for free, if you get an expensive enough plan. On T-Mobile UK, the brand new "G2 Touch" (HTC Hero) can be had for free on an 18-month contract if your plan costs ~$59 USD a month. T-Mobile US just got its older brother, the HTC Magic, as the "myTouch 3G" - which is $200 with a 24-month contract, no matter which plan you get. Hell, here you're walking out the door paying $10 for absolutely shitty low-end dumbphones like the Samsung T229 and the Motorola Renew (both for T-Mobile US). There's a lot of reasons why the US is behind - splitting the market between GSM and CDMA is probably part of it, and that'll probably get better now that everybody who matters (sorry, Sprint!) will be on LTE. But I think the carriers' absolute dominance over all aspects of the cellular market - phones, service, content... - is part of it. If you walk into a Best Buy Mobile and ask for (just) an AT&T SIM, the people probably won't know how to help you. US carriers feel the need to have their own special firmware - not just a carrier-branded store icon, but often a whole new UI and different features (I'm looking at you, Verizon!). That probably plays a factor in why we get lots of phones a year after everyone else. But this is bullshit because the people who actually care about those features will just flash the firmware to the unbranded version anyway. Verizon routinely removes features like Wi-Fi from their highest-end phones. I don't understand their reasoning on that one at all. And we pay for incoming texts. Need I go on? Just once I'd like to see somebody make a US-Canadian carrier that's more European WRT phones, pricing, policies, &c. But people in the US honestly don't know that you can buy phones from anywhere other than the AT&T store - which means AT&T can shovel them shit and they'll buy it anyways. It's obvious a very profitable prospect for AT&T. (I think that's why doing a routine unlock of the iPhone fascinates us so; it's like working dark magic to make an AT&T phone work with T-Mobile too!)

So mostly you equate being so far behind with things costing more. If T-Mo UK thinks it can make money by giving away that several hundred dollar handset in return for $60/mo then that's fine. The UK is a very competitive market. The rest of the continent not so.

The CDMA/GSM argument means nothing to the end user. The vast, overwhelming majority have no idea what those things are and don't care. They want a cheap or free phone. Or they pay for a BB or iPhone. And why buy it unlocked/unbranded when you can get it from much cheaper from the carrier? And while nerds love to complain about the customized UIs, especially Verizon, the average user doesn't care. They are dumbphones meant to send/receive calls and texts. The VZW UI has been very successful for them. Why? Because the number one complaint of average users when the get a new phone is that they have to learn how to use it all over again. And it's not like the standard UIs are anything to write home about.